Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority Board Action/Information Summary

Transcription

1 Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority Board Action/Information Summary Action Information MEAD Number: Resolution: Yes No PURPOSE Request Board approval to update WMATA s Metrobus Fleet Management Plan, which was last updated in This Plan provides for bus and facilities to support future growth of the existing system. DESCRIPTION The Metrobus Revenue Vehicle Fleet Management Plan is a tool that provides proper planning for future Metrobus vehicle and facility needs, taking into consideration current and future ridership demand, proposed service expansion projects, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and Metrobus renovation program. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that WMATA adopt an updated Metrobus Fleet Management Plan. The adoption of this Plan provides the justification for the future expansion of the Metobus fleet, and the need for additional storage spaces and maintenance bays for new vehicles. By adopting the Plan, the Board does not make any formal commitment of any project, or funding for any fleet expansion. The following is a summary of the improvements included in the Plan. Bus Growth: This Plan describes the need for 167 additional buses to respond to projected ridership growth. The 167 buses for growth include 76 articulated buses that will be procured to reduce operating cost and increase seating capacity. This plan also maintains and expands the Authority s policy to replace overage buses and maintain an average fleet age of 7.5 years. The plan includes a modification to maintain overall capacity as older buses are replaced by newer buses with less seating capacity. This results in the replacement of 400 buses with 461 new buses to maintain capacity.

2 Current Fleet 1,481 Buses for growth Articulated Buses 76 40/42 Foot Buses 91 Replacement Buses to maintain 7.5 avg. age One for one replacement 400 To maintain capacity 61 Procurement Total Bus needs 628 Projected Bus Fleet 1709 Metrobus Storage Needs: The network evaluation anticipates the need for an additional 228 buses. The fleet plan demonstrates that there are not sufficient storage spaces to accommodate system growth of 228 buses. Current number of bus storage spaces 1,645 Current Metrobus Operating Fleet 1,481 Excess storages spaces +164 Service Expansion 2011: Current Metrobus Operating Fleet 1,481 Total Additional buses 228 Total number of buses-with growth & seat loss 1,709 Current number of bus storage spaces 1,645 Subtotal storage spaces (-64) Articulated buses require 1.5 storage spaces, therefore an additional 38 storage spaces are required (-38) Storage spaces (-102) System Growth of Storage Spaces Current number of bus storage spaces 1,645 New Southeast (121 existing, 129 new) 129 Bladensburg (257 existing, 43 new) 43 West Ox (Arlington/West Ox 100 spaces) 0 Additional storage spaces: 172 Total Additional buses 228 Articulated spaces (-38) Total storage spaces 1,817 Total buses 1,709 Subtotal storage spaces 108 Excess storage spaces 70

3 Bus Maintenance Facility Needs: The Plan includes two new garages to be constructed at West Ox and Southeast that will increase system capacity. The Fleet Plan also identifies the need for additional maintenance bays, to maintain articulated buses at Montgomery and Landover. In addition, modifications of existing capacity was identified at Bladensburg if the service vehicle maintenance shop is relocated. Funding to make these improvements has not been identified. FUNDING IMPACT The adoption of the Metrobus Fleet Plan is for planning purposes only and does not obligate the Authority or its Board of Directors to the Plan s projected requirements; therefore there is no funding impact. RECOMMENDATION Board approval of Metrobus Fleet Management Plan.

4

5 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 FIFTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C DRAFT April 4, 2007 (4:10pm) METROBUS REVENUE VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN APRIL 2007

6 This Metrobus Revenue Vehicle Fleet Management Plan was developed by: Office of Operations Planning and Administrative Support Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 600 Fifth Street, N.W.! Washington, D.C Contributors The following WMATA organizations contributed data and information to this Fleet Management Plan: Department of Operations: Department of Planning and Strategic Programs: Department of Communications: Office of Bus Maintenance Office of Bus Transportation Office of the Chief Engineer Office of Business Planning and Project Development Replication and Digitizing Services (Graphic design and printing services)

7 CONTENTS PAGE SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION Current Metrobus Fleet Organization of this Document SECTION TWO: THE DEMAND FOR REVENUE VEHICLES Quality of Service Metrobus Service Planning Efficiency and Productivity Guidelines Efficiency and The Planning Process The Planning Process Efficiency and Peak Vehicle Requirement Efficiency and Future Passenger Demand and Factors Influencing Peak Period Ridership SECTION THREE: METROBUS NETWORK EVALUATION Efficiency and Purpose of Evaluation Focus on Fleet Related Characteristics Choice of Performance and Design Measures Route Classification and Initial Thresholds Regional Bus Study Recommendations Summary SECTION FOUR METROBUS FLEET NEEDS Vehicle Requirements by Type Seat Loss Table of Contents Page i

8 SECTION FIVE MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW Maintaining Service Reliability: Road Calls, Change-Offs, and Strategic Buses Vehicle Size Requirements Summary of Operating Peak Vehicle Requirements Overview of the Metrobus Maintenance Program Scheduled Preventative Maintenance Monitoring and Support of the Preventative Maintenance Program Unscheduled Corrective Maintenance Bus Failure Definitions and Actions Expected Vehicle Life and the Heavy Maintenance Overhaul Program The Operating Spare Ratio The Fleet Spare Ratio Environmental Conditions Affecting the Operating Spare Ratio A Summary of Maintenance Requirements Vehicle Fleet Need and Maintenance Capacity Bus Fleet Storage and Repair Shop Facilities SECTION SIX: THE SUPPLY OF REVENUE VEHICLES Planned Bus Procurement and Vehicle Replacement Adjustments to Vehicle Supply: Inactive Fleet Alternative Fuels SECTION SEVEN: REVENUE VEHICLE DEMAND / SUPPLY BALANCE Garage Capacity Issues Necessary Garage Actions Proposed Garage Assignments SECTION EIGHT: APPENDIX Page ii Table of Contents

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Washington DC Transit Zone (Diagram) Figure 1-2: Garage and Shop Facilities Figure 2-1: Metrobus Weekday Service Profile (Peak Vehicles in Service) Figure 5-1: FY 2006 Metrobus Change-offs Figure 5-2: FY 2006 Road Calls Figure 5-3: Use of Strategic Buses Figure 5-4: Metrobus Vehicle System Failures Figure 5-5: Maintenance Overhaul Production Flow Figure 5-6a: Calculation of Operating Spare Ratio (OSR) Figure 5-6b: Calculation of the Fleet Spare Ratio (FSR) Figure 5-7: Mean Distance Between Failures LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: End-of-year Total Fleet and Division Assignment Table 3-1: Productivity Thresholds Table 3-2: Productivity Results Table 3-3: Lines with Travel Time Problems Table 3-4: Additional Vehicles Needed To Address Travel Time Problems Table 3-5: Lines with Crowding in Peak Periods Table 3-6: Cases of Apparent Duplication Table 3-7: Summary of Evaluation Measures Table 4-1: WMATA Metrobus Fleet by Type Table 4-2: WMATA Peak Bus Requirements Table 4-3a: WMATA Peak Bus Requirements in 2011: Changes From Existing Table 4-3b: Reasons for Additional Vehicles by Sub-Region Table 5-1: Preventative Maintenance Schedule Table 5-2: Maintenance Demand for Revenue Vehicles Table 5-3: Metrobus Garages Table 5-4: Vehicle Fleet and Garage Capacity by Jurisdiction Table 6-1: Current Metrobus Fleet Table 6-2: Supply of Revenue Vehicles Table 7-1: Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance Table 7-2: Fleet Assignments by Garage Table A-1: Metrobus Road-Calls and Change-Offs in FY Table A-2: Use of Strategic Buses Table of Contents Page iii

10 *** This page intentionally blank ***

11 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY METROBUS REVENUE VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT PLAN APRIL 2007 This document is a statement of the processes and practices by which WMATA establishes its current and projected Metrobus revenue vehicle fleet size requirements and operating spare ratio. It includes a description of revenue service planned to accommodate growth in Metrobus ridership, as well as an assessment and projection of needs for bus vehicle maintenance. This plan is a living document which is based on current realities and assumptions, and is therefore subject to future revision. The intent is to update the plan on a regular basis and to have the plan become an input into the Authority s capital and operating budget preparation. SECTION ONE Section One: Introduction *Source: WMATA s FY 2006 National Transit Database Report INTRODUCTION Metrobus celebrated its 33 rd anniversary in February Since the time Congress directed WMATA to takeover the region s four failing private bus companies in 1973 and create the Metrobus system, more than 1.0 billion miles of service have been operated and more than 3.9 billion passengers have used the system. Metrobus is not only the largest bus service in the metropolitan area, it is the fifth largest nationally based on fleet size.* Section One: Introduction Page 1

12 The Authority takes pride in Metrobus s many accomplishments:! Metrobus ridership is the sixth highest nationally.! The Metrobus accident rate is one of the lowest of major metropolitan areas.! Metrobus is in the top 25 percent for miles between service interruptions and has one of the lowest maintenance costs per mile.! Metrobus exhibits very high rates of trips completed and on-time performance.! Metrobus operators and mechanics receive high quality training and focus on serving the customer.! Metrobus offers a stable and reliable workforce: operator and mechanic turnover rates are low. *Source: WMATA s FY 2006 National Transit Database Report The Metrobus system carried about 441,000 unlinked passenger trips* on an average weekday in FY 2006, and recorded 131 million passenger trips*. The Metrobus fleet traveled 420 million passenger miles in FY 2006,* and this was accomplished with a mean distance between service delays of over 5,200 miles. The system operates 332 routes and 2,789 directional route miles in the Washington, D. C. transit zone.* Although bus service is light between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m., there are Metrobuses in operation somewhere in the system approximately 24 hours a day. Passenger fares pay more than one-third of Metrobus annual operating cost, the remainder being paid in the way of operating subsidy by the local governments in the transit zone. Page 2 Section One: Introduction

13 The WMATA Transit Zone, illustrated in Figure 1-1, is defined by the Authority s Interstate Compact, created by Congress in Figure 1-1 Figure 1-1: Washington DC Transit Zone (Diagram) Metrobus operates ten full service operating divisions, as shown in Figure 1-2. The Metrobus heavy repair shop is currently is located in the Carmen E. Turner facility at Pennsy Drive where major corrective maintenance is performed. In addition, the heavy repair shop at the Bladensburg Operating Division serves as the home of the WMATA Heavy Maintenance Overhaul Program. The Heavy Overhaul program has been so successful at extending the useful life of a transit bus, the WMATA Board of Directors raised the expected service life of a Metrobus from 12 years to 15 years and set the target average age of the Metrobus fleet at 7½ years. In the past the Authority has also contracted with other bus fleet operators such as the State of Maryland, Ride-On (Montgomery County, MD) and PRTC (Prince William County, VA) to provide heavy overhaul service. Section One: Introduction Page 3

14 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-2: Garage and Shop Facilities Page 4 Section One: Introduction

15 CURRENT METROBUS FLEET Current Metrobus Fleet As of December 2006 the Authority's Metrobus active revenue fleet consisted of 1,481 vehicles, as shown in Table 1.1. This table includes the vehicles necessary for revenue service, maintenance requirements, spares, and six training buses. Table 1-1 Table 1-1: End-of-year Total Fleet and Division Assignment Metrobus 2006 End-of-year Total Fleet and Division Assignment DIVISION Small Buses (26 Feet) Standard Size Buses (30', 35', & 40 feet) Articulated Buses TOTAL Bladensburg Southern Avenue Southeastern Northern Western Four Mile Arlington Royal Street Landover Montgomery TOTAL 26 1, ,481 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT Organization of this Document Demand Analysis: Section Two of this document summarizes the demand for revenue vehicles. Demand is analyzed in two components: Passenger Demand, in which the process for developing peak vehicle requirements (PVR) is reviewed, including forecast peak period ridership, vehicle type requirements, strategic vehicles, and passenger load policy, and Maintenance Requirements, including the process which defines vehicle requirements by size and type for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and for mid-life vehicle renovation. Section One: Introduction Page 5

16 Network Evaluation: Section Three reviews and summarizes the comprehensive bus service Network Evaluation conducted to determine WMATA s fleet needs through fiscal year Metrobus Fleet Needs: Section Four documents the impacts of the proposed service changes identified in the Network Evaluation on the existing fleet.. Maintenance Overview: Section Five focuses on Maintaining Service Reliability. Demand/Supply Balance: In Section Six the balance of the demand for vehicles and the supply of vehicles is discussed. The plan is also summarized. Supply of Revenue Vehicles/Garage Capacity: Section Seven addresses the supply of Metrobus revenue vehicles. It accounts for total buses owned by fiscal year, showing authorized and anticipated procurement, and vehicles available for service and garage capacity issues to store buses. Page 6 Section One: Introduction

17 SECTION TWO Section Two: The Demand for Revenue Vehicles THE DEMAND FOR REVENUE VEHICLES QUALITY OF SERVICE Quality of Service * WMATA Customer Satisfaction Measurement, 2006 Quality of service is what ultimately determines the success of any transit system. This is especially true for Metrobus, since strong commitments have been made in terms of the system's performance, and the public has come to expect a superior product in return for its investment. Service quality is also important because the system is growing and the transit market continues to change. A large segment of WMATA s marketplace is discretionary. According to a recent WMATA survey, 78 percent of Metrobus users have access to a car and therefore are choice riders.* Quality of service is key to retaining and growing ridership in this market. According to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG), more than 40 percent of commuter trips to the core area of Washington, D.C. are made using public transportation; second highest transit mode splits in the nation. Favorable public opinion regarding the quality of service provided by WMATA has resulted in ridership growth. Quality of service is considered to be a function of the following factors:! Safety! Speed! Cleanliness! Courtesy! Frequency! Comfort! Service Reliability Frequency, comfort, service reliability, and cleanliness are related to fleet size and vehicle type. Section Two: The Demand For Revenue Vehicles Page 7

18 The process WMATA uses to develop bus fleet size requirements includes ongoing evaluations of ridership vs. route capacity, and new initiative procurement of new buses. Fleet size requirements are updated on a periodic basis prompted by events such as the initiation of new routes and services, increased demand for existing service, or the procurement of new buses. METROBUS SERVICE PLANNING Metrobus Service Planning *The Washington region is the third most trafficcongested area in the country. Street congestion directly affects bus speed and passenger travel time. A continued decline in bus speed eventually will prompt an increase the number of vehicles necessary to operate the present level of service. EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY GUIDELINES E f f i c i e n c y a n d Productivity Guidelines The Metrobus network is comprised basically of two types of service. The first type, and the large majority of the service, is demand driven. That is, the quantity of service, (i.e., the headway) is determined by the passenger loads on the respective trips, routes, and lines. The quantity of service is driven by ridership demand at the maximum load point on the line. The headways are adjusted to keep the service from becoming overcrowded. All service is monitored on a regular basis to balance supply and demand and to make adjustments for changing demographics and congestion. The latter effect can lead to an adjustment, usually an increase, in the running time of the service.* Consideration of vehicle size is also applied to demand driven service requirements. The Authority currently has articulated, standard size, and small buses to utilize in our vehicle supply mix. The vehicle size mix and availability are matched against the specific service needs. Once the headway, running time, vehicle size mix, etc., are established, the scheduling process is applied. The result of this process is scheduled vehicle requirements by size and by operating division. Service is scheduled to the most efficient division that has the necessary maintenance and storage capacity. On routes where level-of-service is driven by passenger demand, the efficiency of the route is defined as the degree to which the scheduled number of buses is able to satisfy the existing passenger demand. The primary objective of the scheduled headway is to provide enough service to permit every waiting passenger to board the first bus going in the passenger s desired direction of travel. Secondarily, whenever passenger volumes consistently exceed the prescribed guideline for each route classification in a one-half, or hour period, measures will be taken to adjust headways or add service. Page 8 Section Two: The Demand for Revenue Vehicles

19 Load Factor: The Authority uses load factor as the guideline to measure passenger demand. Peak hour maximum load factor measures the number of passengers on the bus at the maximum load point (the point that historically has the most passengers aboard the bus at any one time). It is calculated using point-checks to determine the number passengers at the maximum load point, divided by the number of seats that were available. The goal is to maintain an average number of passengers on each bus during the peak hour. Therefore, load factor is actually an average. Some trips will have more passengers and others less. A load factor of.90 means 90% of the available seats were occupied within the peak hour. The Authority uses load factor to determine when service should be increased and decreased. To determine when a service increase is justified each line is classified as either being radial, crosstown, or express. Line classification is used because lines within certain classifications may have characteristics that lead to them performing at a different level than other classifications. A service increase is warranted if the ratio of passengers to seats at the maximum load point during the peak half-hour or non-peak hour exceeds the load factor. The load factor is calculated by determining the number of passengers that pass the maximum load point, the number of trips made during the period, and the number of seats available on a bus (39). For example: 200 passengers divided by 5 trips, divided by 39 seats, yields a load factor of 1.0. This load factor differential by line type is as follows: Line Classification Load Factors To Add Service! Radial - operates over major arterials and corridors and is oriented toward major urban centers ! Crosstown - provides service across corridors and generally does not serve urban centers ! Express - operates over major travel corridors and includes significant non-stop segments oriented toward major activity centers ! Off-peak (all service types) Section Two: The Demand For Revenue Vehicles Page 9

20 The second type of basic service is policy driven. On a policy driven route the ridership generally is not high enough to produce an adequate headway if demand driven criteria were used. It is established by policy that the service will be provided, and that a specific or minimum level of service will be operated. Even though demand for a typical policy driven route may be low, it enhances the overall transit network by providing service to unserved markets which feed existing bus or rail lines or relieve congestion. Examples of policy service include night and weekend service when ridership is typically light, and new routes or innovative types of services for which the demand is emerging/developing. For new and innovative services the objective is to provide an attractive level of service for the potential market and allow the ridership to grow. However, a minimum level of demand is required to implement new service. The vehicle requirements for policy driven routes are determined by taking into consideration the same parameters as described for demand driven service. Vehicle assignments are broken down by number, size, and operating division. The scheduling process produces the maximum peak scheduled vehicle demand by operating division for both the AM and PM peak periods. It should be noted that some divisions may have a somewhat higher vehicle demand in one peak period or the other. The maximum scheduled peak period vehicle demand for that division is the higher of the two figures. The summation of the peak vehicle demands for all divisions equals the system-wide peak scheduled vehicle demand by vehicle size. THE PLANNING PROCESS Efficiency and The Planning Process The Planning Process The following paragraphs describe the tasks of the planning process that produce the Peak Vehicle Requirement and determine fleet size. Estimate Passenger Demand: The first step in the service planning process is to determine demand at the maximum load points of each bus route on which the level-of-service is demand driven. This is accomplished by actual counts of current ridership coupled with estimates of future demand. Future demand estimates are made by WMATA professional planning staff. For the purpose of this fleet management plan, passenger demand is projected five years into the future, and takes into account regional growth estimates from (COG). Page 10 Section Two: The Demand for Revenue Vehicles

21 Determine Policy Headways, Applicable Routes, and the Resulting Vehicles Required: This is a simple vehicle count that derives from the policy headway and travel time. Determine the In-Service Vehicle Requirement: This is the sum of the vehicles required to maintain policy headways and those required to respond to observe and project passenger demand, categorized by vehicle type and operating division. It is a product of the scheduling process. Determine the Strategic Bus Requirement: Vehicle reliability history helps determine the number of buses needed as strategics. Strategic buses are manned spare vehicles held in reserve during peak periods at strategic locations for quick replacement of breakdowns or for response to unusual circumstances, accidents, weather, or unannounced major detours. They help ensure reliable service to the public. Determine The Peak Vehicle Requirement: The Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) is the sum of peak period in service bus requirements for the entire system plus strategics. Determine the Operating Spares Required: Bus reliability history and preventive maintenance practices determine the number of spare buses necessary to meet the total peak bus requirement. This number is usually expressed as a percentage of the scheduled fleet in excess of the daily in-service requirement. Current practice is to maintain a 15% spare ratio. It provides a sufficient number of buses to be available for routine maintenance, and also assumes that a certain number of buses will be unavailable for service each day because of mechanical problems. The operating spare ratio also contributes to fleet reliability. Determine the Total Operating Fleet: The total bus operating fleet is the sum of the Peak Vehicle Requirement and operating spares. Determine the Heavy Overhaul Requirement: This fleet management plan calls for 20 buses to be in the heavy overhaul process at any given time. Determine the Total Active Fleet: The total active fleet is the sum of the total operating fleet and the heavy overhaul requirement. Section Two: The Demand For Revenue Vehicles Page 11

22 PEAK VEHICLE REQUIREMENT Efficiency and Peak Vehicle Requirement Determine the Inactive Fleet: The inactive fleet includes vehicles in acceptance testing, historic vehicles reserved for special use, buses pending disposal, and the contingency fleet. These vehicles are not included in the calculation of the spare ratios. The Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) is the total number of buses needed simultaneously in the peak periods to satisfy passenger demand while keeping per-bus passenger loads at or below a predetermined level. As an illustration of this requirement, Figure 2-1 shows the total number of Metrobus vehicles in service by time of day. Figure 2-1: Metrobus Weekday Service Profile (Peak Vehicles in Service) Figure 2-1 Page 12 Section Two: The Demand for Revenue Vehicles

23 FUTURE PASSENGER DEMAND AND FACTORS INFLUENCING PEAK PERIOD RIDERSHIP Efficiency and Future General Ridership Growth: The Authority relies on the Council of Governments to project overall regional population, land use growth and transportation demand. Metrobus ridership increased approximately 12 percent from FY 2000 to FY 2006,* and the most recent COG study projects substantial growth between now and a horizon year of This fleet management plan needs to take that growth into account in projecting WMATA's future fleet size requirements. Hence the inclusion of two percent annual general ridership growth as a factor influencing fleet size requirements from FY 2007 to FY *Wmata installed new fareboxes in FY05 that produce more accurate ridership numbers Passenger Demand a n d F a c t o r s Influencing Peak Period Ridership Section Two: The Demand For Revenue Vehicles Page 13

24 *** This page intentionally blank ***

25 SECTION THREE METROBUS NETWORK EVALUATION Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation PURPOSE The purpose of this Metrobus Network Evaluation study was to perform OF a comprehensive bus service evaluation that determined the fleet needs for WMATA through fiscal year FY2011. This work built on the WMATA EVALUATION Regional Bus Study, a comprehensive bus plan for the region that Efficiency and Purpose addressed bus service needs to be provided by Metrobus, as well as, of Evaluation by local providers. The recommendations of this study support an update of the 5-year Metrobus Revenue Vehicle Fleet Management Plan. The approach used to determine the fleet needs consists of several steps:! Apply performance measures to existing Metrobus lines to determine which ones are performing poorly and thus could be candidates for service reduction or restructuring.! Evaluate existing lines that may offer duplicative service as a means of reducing fleet needs.! Identify existing lines that have crowding or running time (reliability) deficiencies that would require additional peak vehicles.! Plan service improvements in selected corridors that have been identified as deficient based on the evaluation.! Review recommendations of the Regional Bus Study to determine which ones have not yet been implemented, and whether they are still valid given current conditions.! Consider any new requirements or service programs identified by the jurisdictions in preparing new service plans. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 15

26 ! Consider the potential for transferring operations between Metrobus and local jurisdictions to improve efficiency and level of service to the customer, a strategy that had not been discussed during the Regional Bus Study (per WMATA guidance).! Achieve consensus with the jurisdictions on the service plans and fleet requirements.! Determine garage requirements and implications Evaluation of Existing Lines: Methodology The following presents a description of the evaluation methodology used in the Metrobus Network Evaluation Study, including a review of available data sources and a list of recommended performance measures. FOCUS ON FLEET RELATED CHARACTERISTICS Focus on Fleet Related Characteristics The first step was to focus the service evaluation on those measures that have a direct impact on the size of the fleet. The key question the Metrobus Network Evaluation Study addressed was how many of the buses projected to be procured actually need to be purchased given current and anticipated near term conditions. With this question in mind, the following performance and design characteristics are selected for this analysis: Performance Productivity/Efficiency of Service Travel Time and Reliability Crowding Design Duplication of Service Service Frequency Productivity measures how effectively the resources devoted to operation of a route are used, typically by calculating the number of boardings per hour, per mile, or per trip. Lines that have poor productivity (relatively few boardings per unit of service) are candidates for service cuts that could reduce the number of peak vehicles required (if the peak period service is reduced). 1 Page 16 1 Note that while off peak service cuts will not reduce total fleet requirements, they do impact the operating budget and were included in the evaluation. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

27 CHOICE OF PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN MEASURES Choice of Performance and Design Measures Reliability is a critical service quality feature for customers (based on research conducted in the Regional Bus Study and the recommendations of the APTA Peer Review), essential for attracting new riders and retaining all riders. Bus lines that have poor reliability, particularly ones whose travel times are longer than the scheduled times, may require additional vehicles in service to meet the schedule. Finally, among the performance measures, crowding is another important service quality measure from the customer perspective. Lines that experience regular overcrowding require additional capacity, and thus more vehicles in service. 2 Two characteristics of service design also have an impact on fleet size. If there are cases of service duplication (two lines serving the same streets for significant stretches), then some vehicles may be able to be saved by eliminating the duplication. Of course, if there is a case of duplication, and both routes have adequate productivity over that segment, then the duplication of the route alignment may not be considered for elimination. Service frequency during peak periods also has a direct impact on vehicle requirements. For high ridership routes, frequency is determined by the number of vehicles required to accommodate the demand. For lower ridership routes, frequency is based on service policies. The next step is to choose specific measures through which WMATA's 173 Metrobus lines are evaluated. The following measures were selected: Productivity Passengers per revenue-hour or revenue-trip Travel Time and Reliability Schedule adherence - % of trips "on-time" at key time points Maintenance of headways for frequent routes Match of scheduled and actual trip time 2 The use of larger vehicles (articulated buses) was also considered and is discussed later in this document; it is worth noting here, however, that Metrobus garages currently pose constraints on increases in the use of articulated buses. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 17

28 Duplication Route overlap where no functional difference Crowding Load factor at peak load point Frequency Policy headways (intervals between buses) ROUTE CLASSIFICATION AND INITIAL THRESHOLDS Route Classification and Initial Thresholds A key feature of the Regional Bus Study's comprehensive operational analysis phase was the creation of a classification system for the various lines for the purposes of that study. WMATA also has a classification system in place that is somewhat different from that used in the Regional Bus Study. For the purpose of this analysis, a hybrid classification was developed that retained some of the key distinctions between lines established in the Regional Bus Study, but was more similar to the system routinely used by the planners in WMATA's OPAS division. This hybrid scheme includes five classes:! Radial Line Haul! Other Urban! Other Suburban! Express! Small Bus (30 foot or less) The study team also decided to divide service into peak and off-peak periods, using WMATA's standard definitions (peak periods being 5:30 a.m. to 9:29 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:59 p.m.) For each of the five classes, different standards were developed for peak and classes, different standards were developed for peak and off-peak service. However, the analysis focused largely on peak period service. The following presents a description of the performance of the current Metrobus route network and identifies where there are deficiencies in productivity, travel time, reliability, service convenience, and capacity, as well as, where the existing service network operates inefficiently due to duplication. Page 18 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

29 Productivity In prior efforts (such as the Regional Bus Study), the productivity calculation for Passengers per Revenue-Hour (Pass/Rev-Hr) included the scheduled recovery time (consistent with the definition of revenue time in the National Transit Database), but for this analysis, recovery time is excluded. (As shown in table 3-1) This was done so that those services with apparent excess recovery time due to the scheduling arithmetic or other reasons are no longer penalized (i.e., no longer reported with lower productivity than other lines). The scheduled recovery time for WMATA lines averages approximately 20 percent of the run time with a standard deviation estimated at slightly greater than 8 percent. The recovery time for several routes is as great as 36 percent (twice the standard deviation) or more, thus it is more appropriate to measure WMATA routes with a Pass/Rev-Hr threshold that excludes recovery time. Class Peak Average Table 3-1 Table 3-1: Productivity Thresholds Productivity Thresholds Peak Threshold (60% of Average) Marginal Fail (-10% of Threshold) Marginal Off-Peak Pass (+10% Threshol of Off-Peak d (60% of Threshold) Average Average) Express* Radial ** Small Bus Suburban Urban * Productivity of express lines is measured in boardings per peak direction trip, not boardings per revenue hour. **Productivity of Articulated bus services (lines X2, Y5-9, & 70,71) not included in the average. Peak average would be 58 pass/rev-hr with these services. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 19

30 The productivity threshold was set at 60 percent of the class average. In addition, for peak period services, those routes that were within 10% of the threshold (plus or minus) were identified as "marginal fail" (approximately between 54% and 60% of the class average) or "marginal pass" (approximately between 60% and 66% of the class average.) Ridership data from the three lines served with articulated buses were excluded from these revised calculations. These higher capacity buses would cause a significant increase in the peak average for the radial route class which would have an impact on the final identification of lines not meeting the productivity threshold. In total, as detailed in Table 3-2, 11 lines were identified as failing to achieve the peak productivity threshold with 1 of these lines at a "marginal fail" level. 3 Eleven additional lines fall within the "marginal pass" level. For the off-peak services, 20 lines fail to meet the threshold measure for their respective classes. Page 20 3 Four additional lines were identified, but they have been excluded from this analysis as they were slated for elimination in Fall Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

31 Table 3-2: Productivity Results Table 3-2 Class Peak Threshold (pass/rev-hr) Productivity Results Lines Failing Peak Threshold (incl. Marginal Fail) Lines at Margina l Fail Level Lines at Marginal Pass Level Off-Peak Threshold (pass/revhr) Radial 33 15K,L none none 23 15K,L 66,68 66,68 D5 Lines Failing Off-Peak Threshold N2-4,6 Urban 33 13A,B,F,G none V14, A,B,F,G C12,14 J4 C12,14 K1 H B 25B G2 25A,F,G,J,P,R Suburban 22 C7,9 F13 12C,D 17 12A,E,F,G Express 14 17A,B,F,M none F13 28T 28T 3T 24T 20F,W,X,Y 29C,E,G,H, X 9 17A,B,F,M 18P,R,S Z11,13 18P,R,S B30 Small Bus 21 N8 none 2T 14 E6 B30 B29,31 N8 N22 26A-E Travel Time The most recent passenger-time survey reports (prepared by OPAS based on ridecheck data) were downloaded for each of the Metrobus lines, and these were manipulated to yield a count of the trips that were observed to be operating with travel times within 5 minutes of the scheduled travel time, 5 to 9 minutes greater than the scheduled time and 10 minutes or more greater than the scheduled time. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 21

32 Lines for which 33% or more of peak-period trips took at least 5 minutes longer than scheduled, or lines for which 10% or more of peak-period trips took at least 10 minutes longer than scheduled, were deemed to have travel time "problems." Among the available ridecheck data (observations were not available for every single line), 43 lines fell into this category. OPAS planners had already addressed some of these problem routes through their regular analysis of the ridecheck data. Schedules for over half of the problem lines (24) had already been adjusted. (No data is available to determine whether these adjustments solved the observed running time problems.) The remaining 19 lines, which presumably are still experiencing travel time problems, are as shown below in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 Table 3-3: Lines with Travel Time Problems Lines with Travel Time Problems Line Line Name Date of Check Peak trips Trips 5-9 min greater than sched Trips 10+ min greater than sched Pct>5 min Pct>1 0 J7,9 I-270 Express March % 31% S1 16th St-Potomac Park May % 29% R12 Kenilworth Ave-New Carrollton March % 26% D1,3,6 Sibley Hospital- Stadium/Armory February % 20% 3Y Lee Highway-Farragut Square November % 20% 16L Annandale-Skyline City- Pentagon September % 17% Z6 Tanglewood-Westfarm January % 15% J1-3 Bethesda-Silver Spring October % 15% 70,71 Georgia Ave-7th St April % 14% C2,4 Greenbelt-Twinbrook November % 14% 30,32,34-36 Pennsylvania Ave June % 14% 90,92,93 U St-Garfield April % 13% W4 Deanwood-Alabama Ave June % 13% V5 Fairfax Village-L'Enfant Plaza June % 12% N2-4,6 Massachusetts Ave May % 11% J5 Twinbrook-Silver Spring August % 10% Page 22 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

33 Lines with Travel Time Problems Line Line Name Date of Check Peak trips Trips 5-9 min greater than sched Trips 10+ min greater than sched Pct>5 min Pct>1 0 P1,2,6 Anacostia-Eckington April % 10% F12 Ardwick Industrial Park Shuttle January % 7% 11Y Mt Vernon Express November % 0% Without taking potential restructuring into account, the number of additional buses that would be necessary to solve these travel time problems was calculated. For several of the lines listed in Table 3-3 (those with light to moderate ridership), it seemed that the most practical solution would be to stretch the headways slightly rather than add vehicles. However, for the following lines, (table 3-4) additional vehicles are recommended. Table 3-4: Additional Vehicles Needed To Address Travel Time Problems Table 3-4 Line Additional Vehicles Needed To Address Travel Time Problems Line Name Number of Additional Vehicles J7,9 I-270 Express 1 Both S1 16th St-Potomac Park 1 Both R12 Kenilworth Ave-New Carrollton 1 Both J1-3 Bethesda-Silver Spring 1 PM 70,71 Georgia Ave-7th St 1 PM C2,4 Greenbelt-Twinbrook 1 PM 30,32,34-36 Pennsylvania Ave 1 Both 90,92,93 U St-Garfield 1 Both N2-4,6 Massachusetts Ave 2 AM AM or PM If all of these vehicles were added, the peak vehicle requirement would increase by 7 for the AM peak and by 8 for the PM peak. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 23

34 Although travel time is the reliability factor most tied to potential fleet needs, the team also considered schedule adherence. Again, using ridecheck data, the number of trips on each line that departed the starting point more than five minutes late or that arrived at the ending point more than one minute early or more than five minutes late was calculated. Lines with service more frequent than every 10 minutes were excluded from this analysis, since the maintenance of headways is more important than schedule adherence for frequent routes (for which passengers typically do not consult printed schedules). Some 97 lines had schedule adherence "problems" defined in this case as having less than two thirds of peak period trips departing and arriving "on time." Of these, 23 lines have had their schedules adjusted since the time of the data collection. These lines were listed in a project memorandum dated June 13, The conundrum that arises with schedule adherence data is that despite clear indications of poor reliability, the data does not necessarily indicate any solution. For most of the lines that had schedule adherence problems, there is a roughly even split of early and late arrivals. That means that the current scheduled running time is not too short or too long; it is just that traffic conditions and ridership patterns are highly variable. If the running time is increased to try to avoid late arrivals, then more trips will arrive early. There are certain operational strategies that can be used to improve schedule adherence (such as increasing the running time but holding the bus at timepoints so that it does not run early), but these can make the service less convenient (slower) for passengers. The Automatic Vehicle Location system should help overall reliability by giving schedulers and operations staff better information about how the buses are actually running along the route. Service Convenience The primary measure of service convenience is the interval between buses on a line, in other words, the service frequency. The Regional Bus Study comprehensively evaluated all Metrobus lines versus recommended frequency thresholds, shown below. Frequency (Minutes between buses) Peak Period Off-Peak/ Weekend Urban/Radial Suburban Express 4 trips none Page 24 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

35 Lines identified in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis of the Regional Bus Study as not meeting these thresholds were recommended for service increases. All of the five subregions other than Outer Virginia had a number of these lines. There are 36 lines that do not currently meet the peak-period frequency thresholds shown above. Of these lines, most have light to moderate ridership, and thus would not be prime candidates for service increases. (Indeed, service increases could push some of them into the poor-performer category with respect to productivity.) There are two lines where current ridership is relatively heavy, P12 and T18, which could benefit from an increase in service from every 20 minutes to every 15 minutes in the peak periods. For the T18, this increase would require one additional peak bus in the morning and 2 in the afternoon. For the P12, the increase would require 2 additional peak buses in the morning and 3 in the afternoon. Crowding Passenger crowding is the component of service quality that receives the most attention from OPAS planners. They are continuously monitoring passenger complaints on this issue and regularly review stationary (point) check data to determine the degree of crowding throughout the system. When cutbacks are made to poorly performing routes, those resources are typically reallocated to lines that are experiencing crowded conditions. WMATA began in calender year 2000 replacing the older buses slated for retirement with a new look low floor bus. Typically, the older buses were configured with more seats (43-48) and the low floor buses with fewer seats (39-41). As of December 2006 WMATA has purchased 681 low-floor buses that have an approximate net loss of five seats per vehicle. Because of this high degree of attention to crowding on the part of internal staff, the consultant team did not perform an in-depth analysis of current crowding. However, an analysis was performed to project future crowding by inflating current ridership by 2% annually for five years (through 2010) and also taking into account the capacity effects of fleet replacement. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 25

36 The lines shown in Table 3-5 would violate WMATA's guideline load factor of 1.2 in the peak period. The load factor is the number of people on the bus at the maximum load point divided by the number of seats. For a 38-seat bus, a 1.2 load factor would mean that 8 people would be standing. Table 3-5 Table 3-5: Lines with Crowding in Peak Periods Lines with Crowding in Peak Periods Line Peak Hour Load Factor 2010 Projected Peak Hour Load Factor Add l Peak Vehicles Needed 5A , 53, S S2, S D , C2, C C F Q R1,2, T V11, A,E,F,G Note that the D2 was operated with small (26-foot) buses because of neighborhood and street constraints. WMATA has begun to replace its 26 foot buses with 30 foot buses on routes such as the D2. With 30 foot buses, the load factor on the D2 is now projected to be 1.1 in 2011 alleviating the load violation. Thus, no additional buses should be required. A total of 22 full-size buses would be needed to alleviate crowded conditions on the lines indicated by Service Duplication Much of the Washington region has a dense network of bus service with many overlapping segments of bus lines. To some extent, this reflects the complex travel patterns of bus passengers who are traveling from many origins to many destinations. Page 26 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

37 In some cases, however, these overlapping segments may represent unnecessary duplication of service. Using system maps, the consultant team identified the instances of apparent duplication shown in Table 3-6. The figure in the rightmost column represents a rough estimate of the percentage of the route mileage that is duplicated. In some of these cases the duplication may be justified to avoid a situation where large numbers of passengers would have to transfer. In the first example shown, it is clear that the amount of bus service between Wheaton Station and Silver Spring Station provided by the Q2 and Y routes is more than is necessary. However, truncating the Y routes at Wheaton would reduce the convenience for those passengers that need to transfer to other bus routes at Silver Spring. According to the on-board survey conducted as part of the Regional Bus Study, there were approximately 200 passengers transferring between the Y routes and other bus routes at Silver Spring (mainly Ride On routes serving Takoma Park). On the other hand, the two largest transfer moves from the Y routes to other lines occurred at Wheaton Station, specifically with the C2,4 and the Ride On 26. Of course, passengers heading to downtown Washington on the Red Line could transfer at either Wheaton or Silver Spring, but the peak fare from Wheaton is 65 cents more. The forthcoming construction project at Silver Spring will reduce bus berthing capacity there; this 2-year period may be an opportune time to test out the concept of truncation of the Y routes at Wheaton. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 27

38 Table 3-6 Table 3-6: Cases of Apparent Duplication Cases of Apparent Duplication Metro Line Other Metro Line Other Local Overlap Y5,7,8,9 Q2 25% C8 Z2 Ride On 10 60% Z routes Ride On 22 75% J4 Ride On 15 95% 89 CAR A-F 60% T17 The Bus 15 75% T16,17; R12; F4; C2 The Bus 16 75% F4,6 The Bus 14 95% R3; F8; 86; F12; A11 The Bus 18 75% F6 The Bus 13 75% F8/F2 The Bus 12 60% T16,17; C2 The Bus 11 75% F14 The Bus 23 50% C21,22,29 The Bus 22, 26 50% A11 J % X % V7-9 U2 50% 92 W4, W6,8 25% M8,9 A routes 60% 29K,N DASH AT8 25% 28B DASH AT2 25% 28 Line 16 Line 10% Page 28 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

39 Summary Table 3-7, provides a full summary of how each of the Metrobus lines fares with respect to the service evaluation measures. A "Yes" indicates that the line meets the threshold for service, and a "No" indicates that a line does not meet the threshold. Line Line Name Class Table 3-7 Table 3-7: Summary of Evaluation Measures Summary of Evaluation Measures Adequate Peak Produc-tivity Adequate Travel Time Meets Policy Freq. No Crowding Curr. Peak Needed Buses Buses 42 Mt Pleasant Radial Yes Yes Yes No Yes North Capitol St Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14 15K,L Chain Bridge Rd Radial No Yes No Yes Yes 5 16A,B,D-F,J Columbia Pike Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14 1B-F,Z Wilson Blvd-Fairfax Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 24P Ballston-Pentagon Radial Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3 30,32,34-36 Pennsylvania Ave Radial Yes No Yes Yes Yes B Ballston-Farragut Square Radial Yes Yes No Yes Yes 6 3A,B,E Lee Hwy Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 3Y Lee Highway-Farragut Square Radial Yes No Yes Yes Yes 2 4A,B,E,H,S Pershing Dr-Arlington Blvd Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes th St Radial Yes Yes Yes No Yes ,68 Petworth-11th St Radial No Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 70,71 Georgia Ave-7th St Radial Yes No Yes Yes Yes 17 1 No Duplication 7A- F,H,P,W,X Lincolnia-North Fairlington Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 24 81,82,83,86 College Park Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 96,97 East Capitol St-Cardozo Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14 9A,E Huntington-Pentagon Radial Yes Yes No Yes Yes 7 A9 South Capitol St Radial Yes Yes No Yes Yes 5 D1,3,6 Sibley Hospital- Stadium/Armory Radial Yes No Yes Yes Yes 28 D5 MacArthur Blvd-Georgetown Radial No Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 G8 Rhode Island Ave Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 11 H1 Brookland - Potomac Park Radial Yes Yes No Yes Yes 4 K6 New Hampshire Ave- Maryland Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 L1,2,4 Connecticut Ave Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 L7,8 Connecticut Ave-Maryland Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 N2-4,6 Massachusetts Ave Radial Yes No Yes Yes Yes 17 2 P1,2,6 Anacostia-Eckington Radial Yes No Yes Yes Yes 11 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 29

40 Line Line Name Class Page 30 Summary of Evaluation Measures Adequate Peak Produc-tivity Adequate Travel Time Meets Policy Freq. No Crowding No Duplication Curr. Peak Needed Buses Buses Q2 Veirs Mill Rd Radial Yes Yes Yes No No 15 4 R1,2,5 Riggs Rd Radial Yes Yes Yes No Yes 8 1 R4 Queens Chapel Rd Radial Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3 S1 16th St-Potomac Park Radial Yes No Yes No Yes 13 2 S2,4 16th St Radial Yes Yes Yes No Yes 26 2 V5 Fairfax Village-L'Enfant Plaza Radial Yes No No Yes Yes 7 V7-9 Minnesota Ave-M St Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes No 14 X1,3 Benning Rd Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes No 10 X2 Benning Rd-H St Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 13 X8 Maryland Ave Radial Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3 Y5,7-9 Georgia Ave-Maryland Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes No 10 Z8 Fairland Radial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 62 Takoma-Petworth Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 94 Stanton Rd Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 10A,E Hunting Towers-Pentagon Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 6 10B Hunting Towers-Ballston Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 4 13A,B,F,G 16G,H,K,W 16L 16Y Nat l Airport-Pentagon- Washington Urban No Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 Columbia Hts West-Pentagon City Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes No 8 Annandale-Skyline City- Pentagon Urban Yes No Yes Yes Yes 2 Columbia Pike-Farragut Square Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 22A Barcroft-South Fairlington Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 4 22B Pentagon-Army-Navy-Shirley Park Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 2 23A,C Mclean-Crystal City Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 25A,F,G,J,P, R Ballston-Bradlee-Pentagon Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 25B Landmark-Ballston Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 4 60,64 Fort Totten-Petworth Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 8S,W,X,Z Foxchase-Seminary Valley Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 90,92,93 U St-Garfield Urban Yes No Yes Yes No 25 1 A11,12 M L King Jr Hwy Urban Yes Yes No Yes No 6 A2-48 Anacostia-Congress Heights Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 19 A4,5 Anacostia-Fort Drum Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 B2 Bladensburg Rd-Anacostia Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 15 C12,14 Hillcrest Heights Urban No Yes No Yes Yes 3 C2,4 Greenbelt-Twinbrook Urban Yes No Yes No Yes 19 3 D12-14 Oxon Hill-Suitland Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 E2-4 Military Rd-Crosstown Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

41 Line Line Name Class Summary of Evaluation Measures Adequate Peak Produc-tivity Adequate Travel Time Meets Policy Freq. No Crowding No Duplication F14 Sheriff Rd-Capitol Heights Urban Yes Yes No Yes No 5 F4,6 Prince George's-Silver Spring Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes No 16 Curr. Peak Needed Buses Buses F8 Prince George's-Langley Park Urban Yes Yes No No No 4 1 G2 P St-Ledroit Park Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 H11-13 Marlow Heights-Temple Hills Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 5 H2-4 Crosstown Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 J11-13 Marlboro Pike Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3 J1-3 Bethesda-Silver Spring Urban Yes No Yes Yes Yes 14 1 J4 College Park-Bethesda Urban Yes Yes No Yes No 5 K1 Takoma-Walter Reed Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 2 K2 Takoma-Fort Totten Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 2 M6 Fairfax Village Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 P12 Eastover-Addison Rd Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 9 3 T18 Annapolis Rd Urban Yes Yes No No Yes 7 2 U2 Minnesota Ave-Anacostia Urban Yes Yes No Yes No 3 U5,6 Mayfair-Marshall Heights Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 U8 Capitol Heights-Benning Heights Urban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 V11,12 District Heights-Suitland Urban Yes Yes No No Yes 4 1 V14,15 District Heights-Seat Pleasant Urban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 5 W4 Deanwood-Alabama Ave Urban Yes No Yes Yes No 14 12A,E,F,G Centreville South Suburban Yes Yes Yes No Yes C,D Centreville North Suburban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3 12L,M Little Rocky Run-Vienna Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 12R,S Stringfellow Road-Vienna Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 20F,W,X,Y Chantilly-Greenbriar Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 24T Mclean Hamlet-East Falls Church Suburban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 2 28A-B Alexandria-Tyson s Corner Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes No 8 28T Tyson s Corner-West Falls Church Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 29K,N Alexandria-Fairfax Suburban Yes Yes No Yes No 5 2W Vienna-Oakton Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 3T Pimmit Hills Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 89,89M Laurel Suburban Yes Yes No Yes No 2 B21,22 Bowie State University Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 B24,25 Bowie-Belair Suburban Yes Yes No Yes Yes 3 B27 Bowie-New Carrollton Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 C11,13 Clinton Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 C21,22,26,29 Central Avenue Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 C7,9 Greenbelt-Glenmont Suburban No Yes No Yes Yes 4 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 31

42 Line Line Name Class Summary of Evaluation Measures Adequate Peak Produc-tivity Adequate Travel Time Meets Policy Freq. No Crowding No Duplication C8 College Park-White Flint Suburban Yes Yes No Yes No 4 F12 F13 Page 32 Ardwick Industrial Park Shuttle Suburban Yes No No Yes Yes 5 Cheverly-Wash Business Park Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 K11-13 Forestville Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 R12 Curr. Peak Needed Buses Buses Kenilworth Ave-New Carrollton Suburban Yes No Yes Yes Yes 7 1 R3 Greenbelt-Fort Totten Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes No 4 T16,17 Greenbelt Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes No 5 T2 River Rd Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 W15 Camp Springs-Indian Head Hwy Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Z2 Colesville-Ashton Suburban Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6 Z6 Tanglewood-Westfarm Suburban Yes No Yes Yes Yes 7 11Y Mt Vernon Express Express Yes No Yes Yes Yes 5 17A,B,F,M Kings Park Express No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 17G,H,K,L Kings Park Express Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 15 18E,F Springfield Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 18G,H,J Orange Hunt Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 18P,R,S Burke Centre Express No Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 21A-D,F Landmark-Pentagon Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 28F,G Skyline City Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 29C,E,G,H,X Annandale Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 13 5A DC-Dulles Airport Express Yes Yes Yes No Yes 2 1 5B DC - Tyson s Corner Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 87,88 Laurel Express Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 B29,31 Crofton-New Carrollton Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 B30 Greenbelt-Bwi Express Express No Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 C28 Pointer Ridge Express Yes Yes Yes No Yes 3 1 J5 Twinbrook-Silver Spring Express Yes No Yes Yes Yes 3 J7,9 I-270 Express Express Yes No Yes Yes Yes 5 1 P17-19 Oxon Hill- Fort Washington Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 REX (R99) Richmond Highway Express Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 W13,14 Bock Road Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 W19 Indian Head Express Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 Z11,13 Greencastle-Briggs Chaney Express Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 Z9,29 Burtonsville-Laurel Express Express Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 98 Woodley Park-Adams Morgan-U St Loop Small Bus NA Yes Yes Yes Yes 0 10P Mt. Vernon Ave-Potomac Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

43 Line Line Name Class Yard-Crystal City Summary of Evaluation Measures Adequate Peak Produc-tivity Adequate Travel Time Meets Policy Freq. No Crowding No Duplication 26A,E East Falls Church Shuttle Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 26W West Falls Church Shuttle Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 2A-C,G Washington Blvd Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 2T Tyson s Corner-Dunn Loring Small Bus No Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Curr. Peak Needed Buses Buses 84,85 RI Ave-New Carrollton Small Bus Yes Yes Yes No Yes 5 1 B8,9 Fort Lincoln Shuttle Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 D2 Glover Park-Dupont Circle *Crowding alleviated by use of 30-foot buses. Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes 5 3 D4 Ivy City-Union Station Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 D8 Hospital Center Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 E6 Chevy Chase Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 F1,2 Chillum Rd Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 H5,7 Mt. Pleasant-Adams Morgan Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 H6 Brookland-Fort Lincoln Loop Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 H8,9 Park Rd-Brookland Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 7 M2 Fairfax Village-Naylor Road Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 M4 Nebraska Ave Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 M8,9 Congress Heights Shuttle Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes No 3 N22 Navy Yard Shuttle Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6 N8 Van Ness-Wesley Heights Loop Small Bus No Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 TAGS (S80,S91) Springfield Circulator Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 U4 Sheriff Rd-River Terrace Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 W2,3 S.E. Community Hospital- Anacostia Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9 W6,8 Garfield-Anacostia Loop Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes No 7 W9 Defense Facilities Shuttle Small Bus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Needs for additional buses to address travel time, frequency, or crowding problems total 38 vehicles for the whole system. None of those "needed" vehicles is associated with a line that fails to meet the productivity threshold. REGIONAL BUS STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS Regional Bus Study Recommendations Overall, relatively few of the recommendations for the District of Columbia have been implemented. Several of the suggestions for new services were reworked into new options. Some changes were projected to be implemented in It would require 60 additional peak vehicles for the service improvements listed above on which no action has been taken, the majority for RapidBus services. Montgomery County has implemented many of the recommendations from the Regional Bus Study. The County developed a program called Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 33

44 "Go Montgomery!" in June 2002 to increase investment in transportation facilities and services. The Regional Bus Study recommendations were the basis for many of the transit investments that were subsequently implemented. The largest single restructuring recommendation involved Metrobus service in the US 29 corridor. This was implemented largely as recommended in the study. It would require 32 additional peak vehicles for the service improvements listed above that are not yet implemented. Up to 15 of these new vehicles would likely be operated by Ride On. Relatively few of the recommendations for Prince George's County have been implemented. In addition to those shown in the table above, there were 65 recommendations for extensions to the span of service; only one of these-the institution of Sunday service on the C29-was implemented (with the opening of the Largo extension). The County is currently in the final stages of its 5-year transit plan; once this plan is completed, it is likely that more recommendations will move toward implementation. It would require 36 additional peak vehicles for the service improvements listed above that are not yet implemented. Perhaps up to 8 of these vehicles would be operated by the County. Several significant changes have been made to Metrobus service in Inner Virginia since the Regional Bus Study, but in several cases, the RBS recommendations were substantially revised prior to implementation. Some of the overlap with DASH service has been resolved through transferring responsibility for the service to DASH, and this trend appears likely to continue. The Metrobus 25 line is the prime candidate for further restructuring and analysis, in line with the conclusions of the evaluation. It would require 30 additional peak vehicles for the service improvements listed above that are not yet implemented. Up to 23 of these vehicles would likely be operated by DASH. Page 34 Several of the recommendations for Outer Virginia have been implemented, but more are planned to be instituted in the future. Seven routes associated with the Richmond Highway corridor, including a branded limited stop route (REX) and 6 circulators were implemented by Metrobus and Fairfax Connector respectively in 2004; these had been long-term recommendations of the Regional Bus Study. Several Metrobus routes are planned to be transferred to Fairfax Connector in 2008/2009, at which point they may be restructured. It would require 57 additional peak vehicles for the service improvements listed above that are not yet implemented. Of these, 29 were projected to be for Fairfax Connector routes, 9 for Loudoun County Transit, and 19 for Metrobus service. The 19 buses are net of vehicle savings due to restructuring recommendations. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation

45 Summary SUMMARY If all of the recommendations for new service from the Regional Bus Study that have not yet been acted upon (and are still deemed relevant) were implemented, a total of 137 additional peak vehicles would be required. 4 With the projected transfer of Metrobus services to Fairfax Connector, the vehicle requirement for Metrobus could drop to 119. With a spare ratio of 15%, the 119 peak vehicle requirement translates into a net additional fleet requirement of 137 buses. Some of the above near-term recommendations were rated as high priority. A number of these have already been implemented. Among those not yet acted upon, a total of 90 peak vehicles (or 104 with spares) would be required to implement high priority recommendations, the majority of which are in Outer Virginia (57 vehicles). The District of Columbia and Montgomery County would each require 9 more peak vehicles for their high priority items, while Prince George's County would require 21 peak vehicles for high priority recommendations. 4 It is important to note that there is some overlap between the new buses required to address deficiencies identified in the present network evaluation and new buses needed to implement Regional Bus Study recommendations. Section Three: Metrobus Network Evaluation Page 35

46 *** This page intentionally blank ***

47 SECTION FOUR Section Four Metrobus Fleet Needs The previous section presented the findings of the Network Evaluation for Metrobus services detailing recommended service modifications and enhancements for each of five subregions. This section presents the impacts of the proposed service changes on the 2011 fleet and garaging requirements. The need for the procurement of 167 buses over five years is confirmed. The proposed Metro Matters acquisition schedule is as follows:! FY07 25 buses! FY08 25 buses! FY09 30 buses! FY10 37 buses! FY11 50 buses METROBUS FLEET NEEDS Section Four: Metrobus Fleet Needs Page 37

48 Baseline Conditions - December 2006 WMATA's active fleet at the end of FY2006 consisted of 1,481 vehicles distributed among bus types as summarized below. Table 4-1 shows the assignment of these vehicles by operating division. Table 4-1 Table 4-1: WMATA Metrobus Fleet by Type WMATA Metrobus Fleet by Type Division Local Small CNG Small Diesel Standard CNG Standard Hybrid Standard Diesel Artic Total Assigned Bladensburg DC Southeastern DC VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS BY TYPE Vehicle Requirements by Type Northern DC Western DC Southern Avenue Sub-Total DC 663 MD Landover MD Montgomery MD Sub Total MD 441 Four Mile Run VA Royal Street VA Arlington VA Sub-Total VA 377 System Total These 1,481 buses include a base fleet of 1,455 buses with 20 contingency buses designated for the heavy overhaul process and 6 reserved for training purposes. In addition, WMATA maintains 50 buses on 'Ready Reserve' status made up of older buses that exceed the 15-year life expectancy (See Section Six) at the Carmen E. Turner Maintenance and Training facility to augment the active fleet as required for special events or to support various maintenance program initiatives. These buses are not included in the active fleet. The peak pullout required to meet the scheduled service for the December 2006 period is summarized in Table 4-2. WMATA reports Peak requirement required to meet the service schedule is currently 1,247 buses. Page 38 Section Four: Metrobus Fleet Needs

49 Table 4-2 Table 4-2: WMATA Peak Bus Requirements WMATA Peak Bus Requirements (December 2006) Division Local Small Bus Peak Note Standard Peak Note Artic Peak Note Peak Required Total Assigned Bladensburg DC 24 P 168 A 20 P Southeastern DC 21 B 58 P Northern DC 9 B 111 A 23 P Western DC 16 A 95 A Sub-Total DC Southern Avenue MD 91 A Landover MD 11 P 136 P Montgomery MD 125 B 14 B Sub Total MD Four Mile Run VA 10 B 176 P Royal Street VA 66 B Arlington VA 2 P 71 P Sub-Total VA System Total Notes: P: Peak pullout in PM A: Peak pullout in AM B: Peak pullout in both AM and PM Projected Requirements - FY2011 Table 4-3a provides a summary of the changes in bus requirements resulting from the findings of the bus service evaluation for Metrobus services for each of the five subregions. Including spares, it is anticipated that the requirement for small buses will decline by about 11 vehicles, the standard 40-foot bus fleet requirement would decrease by 27 buses, and articulated buses would increase by 76 buses for a net increase of 167 buses. Given that the current morning peak requirements are slightly greater than the afternoon peak requirements for the Virginia and District of Columbia subregions, it is assumed that the existing fleet can absorb the slightly greater increase in the afternoon requirements without additional purchases. The situation is just the opposite for the Maryland garages as the current afternoon peak requirement is larger than the morning peak requirement. Section Four: Metrobus Fleet Needs Page 39

50 It is recommended to procure the 167 buses for the Metro Matters initiative, and they should be distributed to the subregions as presented as 'New Buses Required' in Table 4-3a. The fleet of 26-foot buses, will be eliminated and replaced by 30-foot buses as our standard small bus. Table 4-3b shows the number of buses required by subregion and by reason. Table 4-3a Table 4-3a: WMATA Peak Bus Requirements in 2011: Changes From Existing WMATA Bus Requirements in 2011: Changes From Existing Jurisdiction Small Bus Standard Bus Articulated Bus Total Peak Buses New Buses Required** AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM District of Columbia DC 95 Inner Virginia (2) (2) Outer Virginia (3) (3) VA 53 Montgomery County 0 0 (26) (27) Prince George s County (5) (5) MD 37 Total (10) (9) Total with Spares (12) (11) *Spare ratio assumed as 15% for small and standard buses and 25% for articulated buses ** 'New Buses Required' assumes the AM Peak for the District of Columbia and the PM Peak for Maryland and Virginia Table 4-3b Table 4-3b: Reasons for Additional Vehicles by Sub-Region Reasons for Additional Peak Vehicles by Sub-Region Restructuring and Modifying Existing Service Crowding and Service Reliability Conversion to Artic Total Spares Total with Spares Seat Loss Grand Total District of Columbia* 78 5 (12) Inner Virginia 46 (1) Outer Virginia 8 (6) Total Virginia 54 (7) Prince George s County Montgomery County 10 6 (11) Total Maryland 23 9 (11) Total Region (23) Page 40 Section Four: Metrobus Fleet Needs

51 Upon acceptance of the final delivery in FY 2011 of all 167 Metro Matters expansion buses, along with the planned bus renewal and replacement of 100 buses each year for the first four years of a five year program, the WMATA active fleet is projected to consist of the following 1,648 vehicles.! Small 30 buses - 99! Standard 40' buses - 1,411! Articulated 60' buses - 138! Total buses -- 1,648 Seat Loss FUTURE SEAT LOSS With the replacement of 400 standard high floor buses having an average 45 seats with the low floor buses 39 seats, bus capacity will be reduced from 76 to 59 (includes standees). Actual seat loss will be approximately 6 seats per bus, for a total loss of 2,400 seats. To replace the lost seats an additional 61 buses would need to be procured. This would increase the number of 40' buses to 1,472 by 2011 and the total number of buses to be procured to 228 for a total active fleet of 1,709 buses. Section Four: Metrobus Fleet Needs Page 41

52 *** This page intentionally blank ***

53 SECTION FIVE Section Five Maintenance Overview Maintaining Service Reliability: Road Calls, Change-Of f s, and Strategic MAINTAINING Buses SERVICE RELIABILITY: ROAD CALLS, CHANGE-OFFS, AND STRATEGIC BUSES MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW The ripple effect of a peak period service delay can inconvenience hundreds of passengers on a line, whose trips are lengthened, who experience crush loads, and who may be unable to board overcrowded buses. Crush loaded buses make boarding and alighting difficult and thereby lengthen stop times, further exacerbating the delay in service. The feedback the Authority receives in the form of passenger complaints is immediate. Metrobus s riders do not hesitate to let us know when the quality of service does not meet their high expectations. When an incident requires that a bus be removed from service, its removal leaves a gap equal to the scheduled headway plus the time required to get a replacement bus onto the route in its place. At times it may be difficult for the following buses to pick up all the waiting passengers. *An incident could be vehicle or passenger generated. The Authority tracks incidents daily, weekly, and monthly.* They are categorized according to the following definitions : Change-Off With Passenger Impact: Any bus replacement for an incident between layover points that causes passengers to transfer from the defective bus to a replacement bus with or without deviation from schedule. Change-Off Without Passenger Impact: Any bus replacement at layover points or while deadheading where there are no passenger transfers or delays. Road-Call With Passenger Impact: Any incident while in revenue service that requires the bus to be removed from service or responded to by an emergency vehicle with deviation from schedule. Road-Call Without Passenger Impact: Any breakdown during deadheading, or at layover points that requires the bus to be removed from service or responded to by a service truck with no deviation from schedule. Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 43

54 Figure 5-1 illustrates the number of Change-Offs per month in FY 2005, and Figure 5-2 illustrates the number of Road-Calls in the same period. The data for these graphs are tabulated in the Appendix. Figure 5-1 Figure 5-1: FY 2006 Metrobus Change-offs The average Metrobus change-off rate in FY 2006 was 431 incidents per month or about 14 per day. Over the course of the 12 months shown in Figure 5-1, only One percent of all Metrobus change-offs resulted in an inconvenience to passengers. The remaining 99 percent were accomplished at layover points and did not result in passenger inconvenience. The average road-call rate in FY 2006 was 1,019 incidents per month or about 34 per day. Over the course of the 12 months shown in Figure 5-2, 73 percent of all Metrobus road-calls resulted in an inconvenience to passengers. The remaining 27 percent were accomplished at layover points or during deadheading, and did not result in passenger inconvenience. Page 44 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

55 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-2: FY 2006 Road Calls Note: Road-Calls and Change-Offs overlap somewhat. An incident may require a Road-Call and it may result in a Change-Off as well. Service Trucks: The Authority stages tow trucks and service trucks throughout the system to respond quickly to vehicles that have failed while in passenger service. Service trucks are equipped with fluids, air compressors, tool kits, jump start equipment, and spare parts. If service truck personnel are unable to return a disabled bus to service, it is towed to its home division for more extensive repair, and a replacement bus is put into service. Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 45

56 Figure 5-3 Figure 5-3: Use of Strategic Buses *Note: The Department of Bus Service operates emergency response vehicles (ERV). These small vans are used, among other things, to provide bus-bridge service during Metrorail station elevator outages. However, they are sufficient to cover only a portion of the outages that occur. The percent figure shown for this category in Figure 5-3 represents use of scheduled strategics for this purpose in addition to the four ERVs. Use of Strategic Buses: Figure 5-3 shows strategic bus use by purpose category. The data (shown in detail in the Appendix) is offered here as being representative of the general pattern on any given day. When a Metrorail station elevator is out of service, there is the possibility that an elevator-dependent disabled patron will be forced to exit the system at a station other than his primary destination. In such cases, WMATA provides courtesy Metrobus service back to the primary destination station. In Figure 5-3, the category labeled Metrorail Station Elevator Outage refers to a use of strategic buses to provide that supplemental service.* Occasionally, when a bus is running particularly late, a strategic bus will be used to fill the gap in service. In Figure 5-3, the category labeled Late reflects such use of the strategic vehicles. Page 46 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

57 VEHICLE SIZE REQUIREMENTS V e h i c l e S i z e Requirements The assignment of standard size buses or large articulated buses to a given route is a function of passenger demand. Deployment of articulated buses helps to reduce fleet size and operating expense. Small buses are increasingly in demand on routes running through residential communities. Small vehicles may also be appropriate on short feeder routes where per-trip passenger volumes are expected to remain low. The requirement for articulated and small buses will be incorporated into future service plans. Actual procurement will be coordinated with WMATA s Office of Bus Transportation during the procurement cycle. Metrobus currently operates 62 articulated buses, 86 thirty-foot buses, and 12 thirty-five foot buses. The 30 and 35-foot vehicles are smaller versions of the standard 40-foot transit bus. For the purpose of this fleet management plan, all of the Authority s 30-foot, 35-foot, and 40-foot buses are grouped together under the heading of standard size vehicles. They have similar operating and maintenance characteristics, failure rates, service frequencies, and resulting spare vehicle requirements. For service development, however, 30-foot buses are specified for low-ridership routes and neighborhoods.the Authority also operates 24 twenty-six foot small buses and 6 cut-away vans. SUMMARY OF OPERATING PEAK VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS Summary of Operating P e a k V e h i c l e Requirements OVERVIEW OF THE METROBUS MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Overview of the Metrobus Maintenance Program The forecast PVR is shown in Table 5.5. It documents the number of vehicles required to serve passenger demand.the Authority is highly committed to carrying out a vehicle maintenance program that operates according to rigorous standards. The reason for adhering to an uncompromising maintenance standard is that it has a direct bearing on our ability to provide high quality, highly reliable passenger service and to minimize the number of maintenance spares required. The Authority dedicates itself to conducting a thorough program of fleetwide preventive maintenance, including regular fluids analysis. The Preventive Maintenance Program has been in place for more than 33 years, and covers all revenue and non-revenue vehicles. Virtually all bus vehicle maintenance is performed in-house. The Authority s inhouse maintenance capabilities include complete paint and body work and full component overhaul, as well as, the full scope of normal running maintenance. Maintenance activity control and record-keeping is accomplished by means of an automated on-line Maximo System. Using Maximo, shop managers are able to track all preventive and corrective maintenance actions. The Maximo system provides a complete maintenance history on each vehicle, and makes it possible to perform a thorough and continuous equipment reliability analysis. Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 47

58 The Authority s extensive support infrastructure means maintenance managers are able to exercise more control over the maintenance process which translates into better body work, mechanical component overhaul, and bus rehabilitation. In addition, WMATA uses a highly developed system of manual record-keeping. The efficiency of the automated and manual systems working together assures the best possible vehicle maintenance at the lowest cost. Two types of maintenance are performed on the Metrobus fleet:! Operating Maintenance, including: Scheduled (preventive) maintenance Unscheduled (corrective) maintenance! Mid-life heavy maintenance overhaul Scheduled maintenance is done to keep equipment in good working order, to prevent in-service failures, and to meet certain vehicle regulatory requirements. Some bus components are overhauled on a schedule dictated by known failure rates and life cycle expectations. Scheduled preventive maintenance of buses is essential to providing safe, reliable, and attractive service. The transit bus is a major capital investment that must be well maintained to maximize its service life and to reduce capital and operating expenditures.to accomplish this task, a scheduled maintenance program has been implemented by the Office of Bus Maintenance. No matter how carefully the preventive maintenance program is constructed and adhered to, however, and no matter how meticulously bus mechanics do their preventive maintenance tasks, the fact remains that buses will occasionally fail in service. Reality demands, therefore, that WMATA needs to plan for a certain portion of the fleet to be out of service because of unexpected failures. Preventive maintenance reduces the unexpected in-service failure rate. *A consultant recommended that the Authority plan to overhaul buses at 7 years, in order to ensure that each vehicle is completed by the 7½ year mark. Service Life of a Transit Bus: Mid-life bus overhaul is essential in order to extend the life of the vehicle. Without it, the expected life of a transit bus is about 12 years. If a vehicle is overhauled at 7½ years*, its expected life will be extended to about 15 years. Board of Directors has enough confidence in the Authority s heavy overhaul program that the Metrobus vehicle expected life has been officially extended to 15 years; one of the highest in the country. The WMATA THIS POLICY REDUCES THE REPLACEMENT CYCLE AND DECREASES WMATA S CAPITAL REQUIREMENT FROM APPROXIMATELY 120 BUSES PER YEAR TO 100, THEREBY SAVING THE AUTHORITY $8.0 MILLION PER YEAR. Page 48 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

59 SCHEDULED PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE S c h e d u l e d P r e v e n t a t i v e Maintenance *Inspection frequency is dictated by manufacturer s recommended mileage-based intervals. For ease of scheduling, some of the mileage intervals are translated into time intervals based on known average daily miles operated by a WMATA Metrobus. The Metrobus scheduled maintenance program is designed to sustain bus reliability by detecting potential defects and allowing them to be corrected before they fail. It also permits servicing of equipment requiring lubrication, measurement, and adjustment. Buses are withdrawn from service at regular mileage-based intervals to permit the following preventive maintenance actions:! Inspection of equipment to determine its condition compared with established standards.! Routine service: lubricating, replacing filters, replenishing fluids, and making adjustments.! Cleaning of exterior and interior surfaces and equipment.! Scheduled replacement of electrical and mechanical equipment. The preventive maintenance program is a form of progressive inspection and servicing, the schedule for which is shown in Table 5-1 and is described in detail in the paragraphs that follow. Inspection Type Table 5-1 Table 5-1: Preventative Maintenance Schedule PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE Inspection Interval Labor Hours Number of Vehicles per Average Day A-Inspection 6,000 Miles 8 36 B-Inspection Bi-Weekly Bus Steam Cleaning 6,000 Miles HVAC Inspection 90 Days GFI Registering Farebox Maintenance Varies ADA Equipment Maintenance 42 Days & Annual Bus Interior Cleaning Daily / Weekly / Monthly Winter Preparation Annual 2 Seasonal Summer Preparation Annual 2 Seasonal Engine Tune-up Annual Coolant System Care Bi-Annual Service Lane Activities Daily Heavy Maintenance Overhaul 7½ Years 20 Fluid Analysis Various Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 49

60 The preventive maintenance functions outlined in Table 5-1 are set forth in detailed step-by-step procedures found in bus manufacturer s maintenance manuals and Metrobus standard practice bulletins, standard operating procedures, and maintenance directives located at each Metrobus operating division and shop. Completed preventive and corrective maintenance activities are documented on the pertinent reporting forms, reviewed and certified by a supervisor, and entered into the specified reporting system. All corrective maintenance is required to be complete within 48 hours unless awaiting shop repair or deferred for parts. There are four basic levels of maintenance: 1. Warranty Maintenance: service and repair of systems and equipment that are still under the manufacturer s warranty. This work is specified by the equipment manufacturer and is required to be accomplished in order to preserve the warranty on the product. On average 16 vehicles are undergoing warranty maintenance each day. 2. Shop Maintenance: Heavy repair shop work involving activities such as accident repair, scheduled equipment overhaul, and unscheduled corrective heavy maintenance (e.g. engine or transmission replacement). An average of 42 buses are undergoing heavy repair work in any given day. 3. Garage Maintenance: The bulk of Metrobus preventive and corrective maintenance is accomplished at the individual garage level. On average, 130 buses are undergoing this level of maintenance on any given day. 4. Retrofit Maintenance: This level involves about seven buses per day. Activities at this level include manufacturer s recall repairs, and special item retrofits such as Nabi frame repairs Orion V, VI frame retrofits, Niehoff alternator installations, sludge reducers, soot filters. In the four levels together, Metrobus scheduled and unscheduled maintenance required 195 buses to be held out of service each service day in FY The following paragraphs summarize each of the scheduled maintenance activities. A-Inspection: This is the primary Metrobus vehicle inspection and service activity. It covers the entire vehicle including driver s compartment equipment and controls, passenger interior, vehicle exterior, engine and engine compartment, transmission, battery, Page 50 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

61 chassis, lubrication, and articulation equipment (if pertinent).the A-Inspection culminates with a complete road test. B-Inspection: A specific checklist of bus equipment is inspected for condition and operation. Defective equipment is repaired or replaced. The inspection includes safety and weather-related equipment, passenger seats, stop chimes, doors, floors, windows, wheelchair equipment, brakes, axles, tires, battery, fluid levels, wires, and hoses. Bus Steam Cleaning: This service is performed at 6,000 mile intervals in conjunction with the A-Inspection. Specific areas of the vehicle that are steam cleaned are the engine and engine compartment, the transmission, the radiator, wheels and tires, the bulkhead area, front and rear exteriors, the A/C compartment and compressor, and the undercarriage. HVAC Inspection: The HVAC system is inspected and serviced every 90 days. There are two procedures associated with this inspection: one for winter (cold weather) months when interior heating is necessary and the other for summer (warm weather) months when cooling is required. GFI Registering Farebox Maintenance/SmartTrip Card: This is a visual and audio inspection of the bill stuffer, bill transporter, coin mechanism, power supply, SmartTrip operation, and other electrical and mechanical components of the farebox. If a problem is found, the component is replaced. ADA Equipment Maintenance: This inspection focuses primarily on the wheelchair lift, ramp, and kneel systems and associated interior ADA equipment and controls. The lift is inspected and lubricated, oil is changed, and the unit is checked for proper operation. Bus Interior Cleaning: Three levels of cleaning are performed:! Daily: Each bus is broom swept each day.! Weekly: In addition to broom sweeping, the drivers console and interior ledges are hand washed, floors are mopped, and windows are cleaned.! Monthly: Gum and graffiti are removed and the entire interior is hand washed and mopped. Winter Preparation: Winterization of the fleet is a one time seasonal procedure, to be completed by October 1 each year. Inspection includes coolant condition and heater hoses, radiator, air dryer system, defroster, battery condition, ether injection system, and fast idle operation. Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 51

62 Summer Preparation: Summer preparation of the fleet is a one time seasonal procedure, to be completed by April 1 each year. Inspection includes coolant hoses and clamps, radiator steam cleaning, coolant condition, fan drive operation, A/C operation, engine and transmission fluid levels/condition/leaks, surge tank condition, engine shut-down system, and fast idle operation. Coolant System Care: Coolant maintenance is performed at each A-Inspection. A refractometer is used to gauge the quality of the coolant, and based on test results, the fluid is replaced or replenished with coolant. Engine Tune-up: All buses will be tuned up based on manufacturer recommendation. This includes spark plug and wire replacement, valve adjustment, fuel injector replacement or adjustment as necessary. Service Lane Activities: This is a cursory inspection that takes place each day in connection with the routine refueling and service of the vehicle. Fluid levels are checked and replenished; lights, doors, and interlocks are checked for proper operation; the farebox is checked; the interior is swept and the exterior is washed. Fluid Analysis: Engine and transmission fluid samples are drawn prior to fluid change in connection with each A-Inspection. Hydraulic and differential oils annually. MONITORING AND SUPPORT OF THE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Monitoring and Support of the P r e v e n t a t i v e Maintenance Program The Bus Maintenance organization is responsible for the development of scheduled Metrobus maintenance programs. All programs are reviewed annually for adequacy, applicability and necessity. Manufacturer s recommendations, historical data on bus system performance obtained from the automated Maximo System and direct contact with bus maintenance employees performing the work provide the foundation for evaluating maintenance program effectiveness. The Quality Assurance Branch monitors fleet performance to ensure that vehicle maintenance practices and procedures are effectively supporting the goal to provide the best in safe, reliable, cost effective and attractive bus transit services. Daily audits are performed within the various maintenance shops and on revenue lines to measure the quality of maintenance performed. The results of the audits are reported to the respective maintenance managers and the Chief Operating Officer for the Department of Bus Service. Considerable time is spent auditing preventive maintenance in progress and immediately after completion. Procedural problems and failure trends are reported to the Bus Maintenance Support Branch for further evaluation and corrective action. Page 52 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

63 The current Metrobus preventive maintenance program is the result of more than 33 years of maintenance and operating experience. Because vehicle system and component maintenance requirements change with age and usage, equipment condition and performance are monitored continuously in order to determine the maintenance actions necessary to meet service and budgetary goals. UNSCHEDULED CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE U n s c h e d u l e d C o r r e c t i v e Maintenance Equipment maintenance is accomplished essentially at a fixed rate. It is not a question of whether a component will need to be serviced, overhauled, or replaced, but when. When preventive maintenance is accomplished on a scheduled basis, plans can be made to schedule the maintenance task without affecting revenue service. When maintenance is accomplished as a result of an in-service failure, on the other hand, it is difficult (and more expensive) to compensate for its loss, and service quality suffers. Nonetheless, no matter how a maintenance organization tries to minimize in-service failure rates, the fact remains that unexpected failures will occur, even on new systems and components. The objective of a preventive maintenance program is to optimize the corrective maintenance requirement, and minimize the accompanying service quality degradation. Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 53

64 Figure 5-4 shows a sample of Metrobus system failures during a typical 12 month period. The Other category includes the following types of malfunctions: Figure 5-4 Figure 5-4: Metrobus Vehicle System Failures! Mirror, window, seat, farebox! Wheelchair lift! Bellows! Steering, acceleration! Flat tire! Leak, fumes, no fuel! Miscellaneous BUS FAILURE DEFINITIONS AND ACTIONS Bus Failure Definitions and Actions Safety-Related Failures: Certain safety-related conditions require that a bus be removed from service. For example, the standard transit bus is designed with a brake/accelerator interlock. This system will not permit the bus to move if the back door is open. If this system fails, the bus operator must discontinue use of the back door. The newer buses, which are equipped with both front and rear door interlocks, are taken out of service if either interlock fails. The vehicle is removed from service as soon as possible. Loose wheel lugs, brake failures, and Page 54 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

65 engine overheat conditions are examples of safety-related failures that require a bus to be removed from service immediately. Safety is first in all operational decisions. Whenever there is an indication of a problem with safety-related equipment, the bus is removed from service. This action eliminates all known risks to passengers, and is consistent with WMATA s System Safety Program Plan. Other Types of Failures: In addition to safety-related conditions, WMATA removes buses from service as the result of a number of other situations. For example, if a bus is not producing sufficient cooling in summer weather, or sufficient heat when the outside air temperature is below 40 F, it will be removed from service as soon as possible during non-rush hours. If a bus is vandalized with significant graffiti or other major damage, it will be removed from service as soon as possible. If a bus is soiled by a sick passenger, it is removed from service immediately. EXPECTED VEHICLE LIFE AND THE HEAVY MAINTENANCE OVERHAUL PROGRAM Expected Vehicle Life and the Heavy Maintenance Overhaul Program *The WMATA Board of Directors has approved a plan to overhaul buses at 7 years, in order to ensure that each vehicle is completed by the 7½ year mark. Vehicle renovation is the third maintenance component of this fleet management plan. After 7½ years* of service life, a WMATA Metrobus will have traveled about 340,000 miles. Many critical parts will wear out and basic overhauls will not be enough to maintain the expected performance. For this reason, a bus will not be maintainable beyond 12 years without a mid-life overhaul. The Heavy Maintenance Overhaul Program, initiated in 1994, provides for the rehabilitation of bus mechanical and electrical systems, including overhaul of the engine, transmission, differential, pneumatic equipment, doors, wheelchair lifts, destination signs, suspension, and other structural components. In addition, the interior and exterior of the bus are repainted and all upholstery and floor mats are replaced. Heavy overhaul includes the incorporation of new technology and safety enhancements in older vehicles, it keeps the fleet in compliance with air quality requirements, and it permits standardization of configuration across bus fleets of varying ages. Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 55

66 THE METROBUS HEAVY MAINTENANCE OVERHAUL PROGRAM REDUCES THE CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR NEW BUSES. THE COST TO OVERHAUL A TRANSIT BUS IS $125,000 VS. $400,000 TO PURCHASE A NEW BUS. Figure 5-5 shows the heavy overhaul production flow and basic scope of work. Twenty buses are in process at any given time. Two buses enter the program each week and two are completed and returned to service. Figure 5-5 Figure 5-5: Maintenance Overhaul Production Flow Page 56 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

67 THE OPERATING SPARE RATIO The Operating Spare Ratio For planning purposes, WMATA uses a Metrobus operating spare ratio calculated as follows: Figure 5-6a Figure 5-6a: Calculation of Operating Spare Ratio (OSR) CALCULATION OF THE OPERATING SPARE RATIO (OSR) On May 15, 1997 the WMATA Board of Directors approved a Metrobus fleet-wide average OSR of 15 percent. Actual spare ratios vary by vehicle type and by operating division. At city operating divisions vehicles are out of service more frequently for corrective maintenance. Urban operating conditions in Washington, D. C. are harsher than in suburban jurisdictions, and passenger volumes are much higher per vehicle mile and per operating hour, producing greater wear and tear on the buses. THE FLEET SPARE RATIO The Fleet Spare Ratio Figure 5-6b Figure 5-6b: Calculation of the Fleet Spare Ratio (FSR) CALCULATION OF THE FLEET SPARE RATIO (FSR) The operating spare ratio includes buses that are ready for service as well as those undergoing routine and corrective maintenance. Beginning in FY 2002, however, as many as 20 of the Authority s buses are undergoing mid-life heavy overhaul at any given time. Inasmuch as these vehicles are not available for service, they are excluded from the operating spare ratio calculation. The fleet spare ratio, on the other hand, includes those vehicles undergoing heavy overhaul, and is nominally about 15.6%. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE OPERATING SPARE RATIO E n v i r o n m e n t a l Conditions Affecting the Operating Spare Ratio As seen in Table 5-2, the number of buses required for maintenance fleet spares (including heavy overhaul) ranges from 195 in FY 2006 to 216 in FY 2011 if peak vehicle requirements increase as projected. This results in an actual OSR of about 15.6 percent and an FSR of 17.1 percent over the life of this fleet management plan. The OSR is not adjusted to account for varying environmental conditions. While changing weather conditions and seasonal variations may affect operating reliability, the bus maintenance program attempts to compensate in ways other than by changing the spare ratio. Each fall all Metrobus vehicles undergo extensive winterization, and in the spring they are prepared for summer operation. Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 57

68 A SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS A S u m m a r y o f M a i n t e n a n c e Requirements In its 33 year history of operation, WMATA's Metrobus maintenance program has resulted in one of the best maintained fleets of transit buses in North America. An aggressive cleaning program keeps interiors and exteriors clean and graffiti free. No bus is released for service with graffiti, and none are allowed to remain in service once graffiti or vandalism are detected. The scheduled maintenance and overhaul program has resulted in a mean distance between failures of approximately 5,243 miles in FY2006. Table 5-2 Table 5-2: Maintenance Demand for Revenue Vehicles MAINTENANCE DEMAND FOR REVENUE VEHICLES FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY Peak Vehicle Requirement 1,247 1,268 1,289 1,314 1,345 1,386 Operating Maintenance MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 2. Scheduled Maintenance Unscheduled Maintenance Operating Maintenance Total Bus Rehabilitation 5. Heavy Overhaul Maintenance Total Vehicle Demand 7. Total Operating Demand 1,442 1,466 1,490 1,519 1,555 1, Total Fleet Demand 1,462 1,486 1,510 1,539 1,575 1,622 Spare Ratios 9. Planned Operating Ratio Fleet Spare Ratio Notes: Line 7 = Line 1 + Line 4 Line 8 = Line 1 + Line 6 Line 9 = Line 4 Line 1 Line 10 = Line 6 Line 1 Page 58 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

69 VEHICLE FLEET NEED AND MAINTENANCE CAPACITY Vehicle Fleet Need and Maintenance Capacity Mean Distance Between Failures: In keeping with the industry standard, Metrobus Mean Distance Between Failures is defined as the number of chargeable service interruptions during revenue service divided into scheduled miles. The Authority has been able to limit the number of Metrobus failures by use of the operating and maintenance strategies described in this fleet management plan. Figure 5-7: Mean Distance Between Failures Figure 5-7 Current Spare Vehicle Requirements: About three-fourths of WMATA's bus maintenance effort must be expended on scheduled maintenance and component overhaul in order to maintain expected performance. The remainder of the 260 maintenance spares are held out of service for unscheduled corrective maintenance. To maintain this level of effort, the Metrobus maintenance program is planned over seven days each week on three shifts each day. There are ten garages strategically located to support the system. The Bladensburg bus facility contains the heavy repair shop. The Carmen E. Turner Maintenance and Training Facility contains the rebuild shops. Engine, transmission, axle, radiator, and small unit rebuilds are performed at this location. Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 59

70 BUS FLEET STORAGE AND REPAIR SHOP FACILITIES Bus Fleet Storage and Repair Shop Facilities Currently, there are 1,481 vehicles in the Metrobus operating fleet including 20 buses undergoing heavy overhaul. The ten Metrobus operating divisions have a combined shop and storage capacity for 1,645 buses or 164 more than in the current fleet. Even though there is sufficient capacity systemwide to house the entire fleet, that capacity is not distributed efficiently. Of the ten divisions shown in Table 5-3, four are located in the District of Columbia, and three each in Maryland and Virginia. (See location map in Section One) Table 5-3 Table 5-3: Metrobus Garages METROBUS GARAGES Division Location Capacity Functions Performed Bladensburg District of Columbia 257 Heavy Repair, Overhaul, Storage Service and Inspection, Running Repair Northern District of Columbia 175 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair Western District of Columbia 138 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair Southeastern District of Columbia 121 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair Montgomery Montgomery County MD 240 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair Landover Prince George s County MD 210 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair Southern Avenue Prince George s County MD 103 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair Four Mile Run Arlington County VA 218 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair Arlington Arlington County VA 100 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair Royal Street City of Alexandria VA 83 Storage, Service and Inspection, Running Repair CTF Heavy Overhaul Storage 50* Ready Reserve fleet is not included in system or garage capacity Total 1,645 * Ready Reserve fleet is a compliment of buses that have exceeded the 15 year life expectency. Page 60 Section Five: Maintenance Overview

71 Table 5-4 Table 5-4: Vehicle Fleet and Garage Capacity by Jurisdiction VEHICLE FLEET AND GARAGE CAPACITY BY JURISDICTION Capacity Maximum Schedule d Strategic s Spares Total Requireme nts Net Capacity DC Total Maryland Total Virginia Total SYSTEM TOTAL 1,645 1, , Garage Rehabilitation: A variety of Metrobus garage rehabilitation projects have been identified and funded as part of the Authority s Infrastructure Renewal Program (IRP). These projects are being undertaken in order to keep the garage facilities in good working order and repair. Garage Relocation or Replacement: In addition to rehabilitation of present garage facilities, several garages have been earmarked for replacement or relocation as follows: Division Royal Street Southeastern Arlington Action Relocation / Expansion Relocation anticipated completion in FY11 to DC Village site. Anticipated bus parking 250. Relocation of the garage, joint development project with Fairfax County at West Ox Rd. Anticipated bus parking for 100 buses Section Five: Maintenance Overview Page 61

72 *** This page intentionally blank ***

73 Section Six: The Supply of Revenue Vehicles SECTION SIX THE SUPPLY OF REVENUE VEHICLES As of December 2006 the active Metrobus fleet consisted of 1,481 vehicles as shown in Table 6-1. It is the goal of the Authority to have a Class A Metrobus fleet; defined as a fleet in which all vehicles have been procured or rehabilitated within the immediately preceding 7½ years. Achievement of this goal would produce a fleet with an approximate average age of 7½ years and no vehicle over 15 years of age. Table 6-2 shows the projected supply of Metrobus revenue vehicles for the period of this fleet management plan. PLANNED BUS PROCUREMENT AND VEHICLE REPLACEMENT P l a n n e d B u s Procurement and Vehicle Replacement The Metrobus procurement cycle is designed to produce the Class A fleet mentioned above. 417 new buses have been purchased as of December 31, CNG buses to enhance fleet in Virginia, 117 Clean Diesels divided among the three Maryland garages, and 50 Hybrid technology buses assigned to the Landover and Montgomery divisions. Four factors influence the Metrobus revenue vehicle procurement cycle: 1. System Growth: Changes in passenger demand, service area, and route coverage. 2. Vehicle Sizes: Changes in service from standard buses to small vans or articulated buses. 3. Age Replacement: Retirement of overage vehicles. 4. Availability of Funds: WMATA capital program has many competing requirements. Section Six: The Supply of Revenue Vehicles Page 63

74 Table 6-1: Current Metrobus Fleet Table 6-1 Page 64 Section Six: The Supply of Revenue Vehicles

75 Table 6-2 Table 6-2: Supply of Revenue Vehicles SUPPLY OF REVENUE VEHICLES Fiscal Year Peak Vehicle Requirement 1,247 1,268 1,289 1,314 1,345 1,386 VEHICLE SUPPLY Vehicles Owned Start of Year 1,542 1,542 1,567 1,622 1,662 1,729 Procurement for Expansion Procurement for Replacement Retirement and Disposal Vehicles Owned End of Year 1,542 1,567 1,622 1,662 1,729 1,729 Ready Reserve Fleet Vehicles Available for Service 1,492 1,517 1,572 1,612 1,679 1,679 ADJUSTMENTS TO VEHICLE SUPPLY: INACTIVE FLEET Adjustments to Vehicle Supply: Inactive Fleet New Bus Acceptance: As new bus procurement programs move forward, a varying number of vehicles will be in the new bus acceptance process. Special Use Fleet: Five buses are designated as historic vehicles. They have been restored to like-new condition and are not used in regular passenger service. Ready Reserve Fleet: The Authority maintains a Ready Reserve fleet of overage buses. These vehicles are preserved in stored condition and are ready for service. If another bus in the active fleet is accident damaged, a bus can be pulled from the contingency fleet as its replacement. The contingency fleet is composed of older vehicles, past their useful service life (e.g. more than 15 years old), that nevertheless would be suitable for passenger service to support regular revenue operations or special events. Section Six: The Supply of Revenue Vehicles Page 65

76 The Authority has been authorized to keep and maintain a Ready Reserve fleet of up to 50 vehicles. In that way there would be a sufficient number of uses to respond to unanticipated service requirements, such as:! Unforseen increases in passenger demand.! Replacement of a large number of active vehicles involved in a catastrophic event, such as a flood at an operating division, or recalled by a vehicle manufacturer.! A major response if a Metrorail line is put out of service for an extended period. ALTERNATIVE FUELS Alternative Fuels The Authority bought 164 CNG buses in FY In 2003 the WMATA Board authorized the procurement of another 175 CNG buses to be received by the end of FY 2006, with four one-year options for an additional 75 buses. The Four Mile Run division has been refitted to service and maintain 218 of the new CNG buses. The remaining 38 buses are housed at the Bladensburg division. Currently, the Metrobus fleet is 28 percent CNG powered. When considering future CNG bus purchases, the Authority will need to consider the installation of CNG service and maintenance equipment at some or all of the remaining Metrobus divisions. In order to make the Metrobus fleet environmentally friendly, the Authority has switched to the use of ultra low sulfur (ULS) diesel fuel. This fuel is used in all diesel powered buses in the fleet (1,035 vehicles). Of the remaining 464, 414 powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) engines, and 50 are powered by hybrid electric technology. In the future, new diesel or other propulsion technologies may present themselves as alternatives to CNG and ULS diesel fuel that meet the Authority s emissions and environmental standards as well or better. Page 66 Section Six: The Supply of Revenue Vehicles

77 SECTION SEVEN REVENUE VEHICLE DEMAND / SUPPLY BALANCE Section Seven: Revenue Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance Table 7-1 is a summary showing the balance of demand for Metrobus vehicles and the supply of buses for the period of this Metrobus Revenue Vehicle Fleet Management Plan. As discussed in the foregoing sections, this plan is a snapshot of an ongoing planning process. It takes into account the passenger demand for vehicles in revenue service and the demand that is placed on the fleet by scheduled and unscheduled maintenance requirements. The plan ties these operating and maintenance requirements to the supply of vehicles in both the present fleet and with the addition of anticipated new vehicle purchases. The plan anticipates that fleet operating demand will rise from the current 1,247 buses at the end of FY 2006 to 1,386 buses by the end of FY It assumes that 25 buses will be needed each peak period as strategic spares. The plan assumes that the number of vehicles required for operating maintenance will rise from the present 215 to 236 buses by the end of FY It assumes the continuation of an aggressive mid-life bus renovation program. The plan anticipates the purchase of 400 new buses during the fiveyear planning period, and it assumes an operating spare ratio of about 15 percent in each of the planning years. Receipt of those new replacement buses will serve to maintain the average age of the fleet at about 7½ years. Section Seven: Revenue Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance Page 67

78 Table 7-1 Table 7-1: Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance VEHICLE DEMAND / SUPPLY BALANCE Operating Requirements VEHICLE DEMAND Peak Vehicle Requirement 1,247 1,268 1,289 1,314 1,345 1,386 Maintenance Requirements Operating Maintenance Scheduled Maintenance Unscheduled Maintenance Total Operating Demand 1,442 1,466 1,490 1,519 1,555 1,602 Heavy Overhaul Maintenance Total Total Fleet Demand 1,462 1,486 1,510 1,539 1,575 1,622 VEHICLE SUPPLY Start of Fiscal Year 1,542 1,542 1,567 1,622 1,729 Projected Procurement for Growth Projected Procurement for Replacement Projected Retirement End of Fiscal Year 1,542 1,567 1,622 1,662 1,739 1,729 Planned Operating Spare Ratio 15.6% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6 % 15.6 % Page 68 Section Seven: Revenue Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance

79 Garage Issues GARAGE CAPACITY ISSUES Capacity Most of WMATA's older garages are assigned buses in numbers at or near the practical storage capacity for these facilities. The major exceptions are the Landover and Montgomery garages both located in Maryland, central to the route networks operating in Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, respectively. As shown in Table 7-2, about 69 percent of the available garage storage capacity, 112 spaces, is located at these two Maryland facilities while only 27 additional buses are required to service increasing needs on Maryland routes by Both of these two garages are located about six miles from Maryland's boundary with the District of Columbia, adding considerable non-revenue operating costs if DC routes were garaged at either facility. The available capacity systemwide could service an estimated 162 buses which would be enough to support the Metro Matters expansion bus program of 167 buses if the current free capacity better matched the demand for expanded services. However, the existing District of Columbia and Virginia garages at current capacities can not adequately support the new buses expected to be assigned to the routes in these two jurisdictions between now and The storage deficit is currently estimated at 70 spaces just to meet the 2011 needs without consideration of longer term growth requirements. Second, most of the older garages are already assigned buses in numbers at or near the practical storage capacity for these facilities. WMATA as identified in the Regional Bus Study Garage Plan is fully cognizant of the critical constraints that its garages place not only on servicing newer buses but, providing sufficient capacity to house an expanded fleet. NECESSARY GARAGE ACTIONS Necessary Garage Actions A proposed plan for assignment of the expansion buses to WMATA garages along with the necessary actions required to expand garage capacity particularly to support growth in bus services for both Virginia and the District of Columbia was developed. The garages in Maryland are newer and have ample capacity to support larger fleets. Given the garage capacity constraints, a proposed phasing plan for the acquisition of and for the implementation of the recommended service modifications and enhancements. This phasing plan takes into account the anticipated schedule to bring on line new garage facilities to replace aging, smaller garages as well as the timing of the anticipated service expansion needs. Growth in the active bus fleet presents challenges to WMATA to increase its bus storage and maintenance capacity. First, Metrobus garages are largely old facilities that require considerable investment to be better able to service the newer bus types with advanced propulsion systems (e.g. CNG or hybrid/electric) and other advanced technologies. Further, WMATA policy requires that new buses be low-floor with ramp systems to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities. Section Seven: Revenue Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance Page 69

80 Due to the low-floor design, newly manufactured buses specify the placement of several components on the roof, making buses taller and requiring changes in maintenance practices and equipment to reach these components. In fact, these modifications are not possible at several facilities due to height constraints. As stated previously, the current capacity for each of WMATA's operating divisions, along with plans for new garages, WMATA is considering several relatively short-term actions to increase garage capacities including:! Capacity at the Bladensburg (DC) garage can be increased to a total of 300 spaces (added increase of 37) with the relocation of the Service Vehicle Maintenance Shop (Car Shop) to the Carmen E. Turner facility.! The Southern Avenue (MD) garage could support a total of 123 buses (increase of 20) with the development of off-site employee parking.! Capacity for an additional 15 articulated buses at Montgomery and Landover could be realized with the addition of portable lifts and modifications of each facility to increase the number of bays by three. WMATA's Arlington garage (currently assigned 90 buses) is due to close in early 2009 and will be replaced with a new West Ox facility in Fairfax County. The West Ox facility is a joint development project with Fairfax County with both Metrobus and Fairfax Connector buses to be serviced at this facility. The current plan for the new West Ox facility will provide Metrobus with storage capacity for 100 buses replacing the lost Arlington garage capacity while Fairfax Connector operation would be allocated 75 spaces. The site plans for the new garage provides the possibility for future expansion to service as many as 300 buses. The existing Southeastern garage located in the District of Columbia occupies a site designated for a new sports stadium and patron parking along with other associated development. Discussions with DC real estate and development officials have been initiated that would allow for construction of a replacement garage in the nearby Anacostia section of the city. This new Southeastern garage will be designed to support 250 buses. Finally, while there has been a desire to develop the Royal Street garage site, any closure of Royal Street would require that this capacity be replaced at another nearby site. Page 70 Section Seven: Revenue Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance

81 In summary, an expanded West Ox garage and a new enlarged replacement Southeastern garage along with the available capacity at Landover and Montgomery, with facility modifications, would provide the necessary capacity to accommodate the recommended Metrobus systemwide service enhancements proposed for implementation over the next five years. In addition, the expansion of the Bladensburg facility should also be pursued to provide operating flexibility in the final assignment of routes to minimize non-revenue (i.e., deadhead) operations and to provide some excess capacity for growth beyond Further, the new Southeastern garage should be designed to support WMATA's abilities to service a proposed expansion of the articulated bus fleet. Section Seven: Revenue Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance Page 71

82 P r o p o s e d Assignments PROPOSED GARAGE ASSIGNMENTS G a r a g e The actions recommended increase total garage capacity by a total of 172 bus storage spaces, with the resulting systemwide bus capacity increasing from 1,645 to 1,817 as shown in Table 7-2. The changes in garage capacities and assignments are summarized as follows:! District of Columbia - Net increase of 172 spaces " Capacity increases by 43 spaces at Bladensburg " Capacity increases by 129 spaces with new Southeastern Table 7-2: Fleet Assignments by Garage 2011 Table 7-2 Jurisdiction 2011 Capacity Fleet Assignment Assigned 2011 Available District (1) Maryland Virginia System (seat loss) System Total 1,817 1, (2) Notes: (1) Based on Service Vehicle Maintenance Shop relocating to CTF from Bladensburg and new Southeast garage. (2) An additional 38 spaces needed for new articulated buses. Page 72 Section Seven: Revenue Vehicle Demand / Supply Balance

83 SECTION EIGHT Section Eight: Appendix APPENDIX Table A-1 Table A-1: Metrobus Road-Calls and Change-Offs in FY2006 METROBUS ROAD-CALLS AND CHANGE-OFFS IN FY 2006 FY 2006 Change -Offs CHARGEABLE NON-CHARGEABLE COMBINED TOTALS Road Calls Total Change -Offs Road Calls Total Change -Offs Road Calls Jul ,195 Aug ,272 Sep ,116 Oct ,204 Nov ,203 Dec ,007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total 64 8,932 8,996 5,110 3,301 8,411 5,174 12,233 Percent 1.2% 73.0% 98.8% 27.0% 100% 100% Mth Avg ,019 Daily Avg 0.2% 24.4% 24.6% 14.0% 9.0% 23.0% 14.1% 33.4% Section Eight: Appendix Page 73

84 Table A-2 Table A-2: Use of Strategic Buses USE OF STRATEGIC BUSES STRATEGIC BUS UTILIZATION BY JURISDICTION APRIL 30, 2001 Jurisdiction & Division MECH LATE OCC ELEV E&D ACC SPACE Total Utilization Trips Operated PG - LNTR MC - MOTR VA - ARTR & FMTR DC - NOTR, BLTR, WETR, SETR TOTAL SYSTEM UTILIZATION TOTAL BUSES SCHEDULED 50 TOTAL BUSES DISPATCHED 50 TOTAL BUSES NOT DISPATCHED 0 TOTAL TRIPS LOST 59 Page 74 Section Eight: Appendix

85 Metrobus Fleet Management Plan Presented to the Board of Directors: Customer Service, Operations and Safety Committee April 12, 2007